Citation

Robinson PH. Boston Univ. Law Rev. 2009; 89(1): 251-264.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2009, Boston University Law School)

DOI

unavailable

PMID

unavailable

Abstract

Under existing American law, advances in the effectiveness and availability of non-lethal weapons may increasingly undermine a right to use a firearm for defense because the choice to use a firearm for protection is increasingly a choice to use more force than is necessary. Ironically, the greatest practical effect of the Supreme Courts interpretation of the Second Amendment in District of Columbia v. Heller may be to invalidate statutes that limit the use of non-lethal weapons and, thereby, to ultimately undermine the right of firearm use. While some might worry one's right to use defensive force is being eroded by these developments, the real concern may be the reverse: the technical advances combined with current law may promote a culture of non-lethal weapon "cowboys," in which non-lethal force is authorized in situations where no force would be used today.